experiment: test consequence from explicit evidence needs
This commit is contained in:
@@ -141,8 +141,8 @@ Answer before continuing:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–53, 54A–54O. Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`.*
|
||||
*Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–53, 54A–54P. Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`.*
|
||||
|
||||
### Return-to-Work Note (Experiment 54O)
|
||||
### Return-to-Work Note (Experiment 54P)
|
||||
|
||||
Experiment 54N exposed a candidate failure pattern where competing causes sharing one diagnostic goal were treated as needing the same information. 54O directly tested whether the model can distinguish evidence needs for such hypotheses. Results across delivery causes, paraphrased same-cause control, and website-sales causes all passed (3/3). Model distinguished staff-capacity from supplier evidence, recognised paraphrased same-cause as same evidence need, and distinguished pricing from technical checkout evidence. No winner or next question was generated. Same host/model retained; no production behaviour changed. Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`. First test/file to inspect when resuming: `tests/reconstruction/semantic-hypothesis-evidence-needs.test.js`.
|
||||
Experiment 54N failed on a higher-level consequence judgement for competing causes sharing one diagnostic goal. Experiment 54O showed the underlying evidence distinction (staff vs supplier) was available when asked directly. Experiment 54P tested whether making those evidence needs explicit restores the consequence judgement; results across three cases all passed. No winner or next question was generated in either experiment. Same host/model retained; no production behaviour changed. Whether this explains the 54N failure or only narrows it remains open. Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`. First test/file to inspect when resuming: `tests/reconstruction/semantic-evidence-consequence.test.js`.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user